Patricia Ferguson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Can the Secretary of State advise what steps will be taken and what funding provided to encourage young people to take up sport, drama and other activities when the social media ban comes into place?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. In fact, one of my bugbears over the years has been that it is far too easy for cash-strapped local authorities to cut back on sport and culture, because they are not part of the statutory services that everyone expects them to deliver. The Scottish Government need to realise that if they are ambitious for Scotland, they need to be ambitious for Scotland’s people. Part of that means making us all more physically active, and to achieve that we need facilities, so I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I recognise that local residents and businesses in my constituency, particularly those near to Scotstoun stadium, will have concerns about possible disruption, which is often associated with large sporting events. I am pleased that the Glasgow 2026 organising body has been engaging with community councils and local residents to understand such concerns, and to seek to minimise disruption as far as possible. Parking is an issue in the area, so I was pleased to hear that an events permit zone will be in operation, alongside other measures such as defined drop-off and pick-up locations, and the ringfencing of ride-share locations. I am also glad that the organisers have been clear that communications with spectators will provide guidance on local public transport routes and encourage spectators to use them as an alternative to driving to venues. Furthermore, I encourage residents and businesses in Glasgow West to attend the two “Get Set” hubs in the constituency, in the Annexe Healthy Living Centre on 12 June and at the Heart of Scotstoun on 18 June. These hubs, organised by Glasgow 2026, will allow communities to learn about the games and their local impact, and allow people to ask questions or raise concerns. There is so much to welcome about these games that it feels a little churlish to mention some of the areas where I feel that things could have been done a little bit better. Those who know Glasgow will appreciate that George Square is the centre point of our city.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Today marks 43 days until Glasgow hosts the 23rd Commonwealth games. The games will happen from 23 July to 2 August, and the city will welcome about 3,000 athletes from 74 nations and territories across the Commonwealth, who will compete in 10 sports and six para sports. The event offers a fantastic opportunity for Glasgow to host world-class athletes from across the Commonwealth, competing at the highest level, showcasing Scotland on an international stage and providing an exciting cultural and economic opportunity for the city. Glasgow will become only the third city in history to host the games twice, following its success in 2014. This is a source of great pride for our city, but as hon. Members will be aware, Glasgow was not intended to be the host city in 2026. When the Australian state of Victoria withdrew from hosting the games, Glasgow, with support from the UK and Scottish Governments, stepped in to ensure that the games took place, which for a time was in doubt. In doing so, there was recognition that these games must be different. The idea needed to be refreshed to ensure a more sustainable model—reducing cost while continuing to highlight and benefit host cities, give our athletes the chance to compete at the highest level, and inspire people across the Commonwealth to take part in sport or be more physically active. For those of us who live in what we might call the devolved nations, the Commonwealth games are the only opportunity that our athletes have to wear the vest of their nation at a world-class event in sport. The new model for Glasgow 2026 is not funded through the normal methods. The delivery of the games themselves does not really require public funding, but it is welcome that the UK Government have made available £2.3 million as a contingency towards security costs. The Glasgow 2026 “Story of Change” framework provides a way to take a new and innovative approach to the games, focusing on four key areas. First, it seeks to deliver a greener games, demonstrating that major events such as these can reduce waste and carbon emissions. As part of that approach, these games are making use of the legacy of the 2014 games by using four pre-existing venues to host events. We have Tollcross International Swimming Centre, the Scottish Event Campus, the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome and the Glasgow International Arena, and of course Scotstoun Stadium in my constituency of Glasgow West. Secondly, Glasgow 2026 will ensure that the games are inclusive and offer opportunities for participation, representation and engagement. With 47 para sport events, Glasgow 2026 will be the largest integrated para sport programme in Commonwealth games history. Moreover, the first medal of the games will be awarded in para powerlifting, making this the first time that a para sport event has opened the medal tally at a Commonwealth games. Thirdly, Glasgow 2026 is seeking to create a welcoming games in a welcoming city by using the games to bring people across Scotland and the Commonwealth together. This is perfectly evident and noteworthy in the Glasgow 2026 Festival, an exciting 10-week, city-wide initiative, running from 23 July to 9 August. It comprises more than 150 free events, ranging from art exhibitions and cultural events to opportunities to participate in sport and workshops across Glasgow. My constituency will host a number of events: a 3x3 basketball tournament in Mansfield Park in Partick, a five-day children’s summer camp at Drumchapel Tennis Club, a family fun day at the Donald Dewar centre, and a Commonwealth community festival organised by Halo Arts and Victoria Park Community Trust. Finally, in taking on this challenge, Glasgow 2026 Ltd, the organising company established to stage the event in partnership with Commonwealth Sport and Commonwealth Games Scotland, is seeking to demonstrate that a more sustainable model for the games is possible, while still supporting local economies, tourism and community development. Hopefully, the slightly slimmed-down version of the Commonwealth games on offer this year will ensure the continued viability of such a special event, while still providing an exciting and diverse programme of sport. As I have said, Glasgow 2026 is using the legacy of facilities built for Glasgow 2014 and aims to create a series of different legacies this time. The Commonwealth Sport Foundation, which is the official charity partner of the games, has pledged that all funds raised through Glasgow 2026 will be shared equally between funding sport for development initiatives in the Commonwealth and supporting three city partners in Glasgow: Glasgow Children’s Hospital Charity, Scottish Sports Futures, and Team Scotland Youth Trust.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  That is really good news, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will relay that kind of activity to the Scottish Government and encourage them to do more for young women and girls in Scotland. It is very important. I could not resist the challenge of responding to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). One of the things I love about the Commonwealth games is that they make a particular point of tailoring the sports featured at individual games, and it varies, to the needs of the competitors. For example, events that are very expensive for participants to take part in tend not to be featured, because many countries in the Commonwealth cannot support that kind of sport. However, shooting and boxing are quite often part of the Commonwealth games. In 2014, we had shooting in Barry Buddon in the north of Scotland, and I remember watching boxing at the games in Melbourne, so those sports are considered for the Commonwealth games. They happen not to be in these games for logistical reasons more than anything else, but the hon. Member should continue to champion them and take them forward. In my opinion, the good thing about Glasgow 2014 was that it showed not just that Glasgow could host a Commonwealth games, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) suggested, that Glasgow can host events—big events. I cannot remember who it was, but someone also mentioned the UCI championships. We can do those events: we have the infrastructure and we are doing well, but we need to do better. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) suggested, sport has the ability to make us all work together and join together; it brings us all together in common cause. At a time when our country is a little more divided than any of us would like—perhaps the world is too—we need to use events such as the Commonwealth games to show that it does not have to be like that. Indeed, it will not be if the principles and values of the Commonwealth games can be taken forward by everyone involved. I thank everyone in Glasgow who is working so hard: George Black, Phil Batty, Jon Doig—I will probably miss out some people who I really should mention—Ian Reid and Billy Garrett from Glasgow Life. A whole panoply of people make sure that these games are a success, and I hope that everyone who comes to Glasgow to see them very much enjoys the games and Glasgow too. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I will not be able to respond to all the points that colleagues have made in the time available, but I am grateful to everyone for their speeches, which have all been interesting and informative. They give us all food for thought. The interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) are very important. The scenes last night do not demonstrate Glasgow at their best—I would argue that they do not represent Glasgow at all—but it is important that we do not shy away from them, and that we challenge them. I hope that we will collectively do so. One of the statistics about sport that has haunted me over the years is that, although boys and girls participate in sport at an equal level up to the age of 11, at the age of 11 girls stop participating in sport at a level that men do not get to until they are aged about 40. There are all sorts of reasons for that, and we can imagine what many of them are, but it is just not good enough. No matter what successive Governments have done, we have never cracked that very important issue. Physical activity and sport are very important; they are important for women and girls and for men, and they should be important to all of us. If any of us can do anything about that, we should. That is one of the reasons why I think the Commonwealth games not being free to air on one of the terrestrial broadcasters is really detrimental. It is not providing the motivation that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) mentioned, and it is not providing inspiration either.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for this debate on the Government’s response to the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report on the pilot safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow, known as the Thistle. The Committee began this inquiry in January 2025, amid ongoing concern that Scotland faces the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe. In 2024, 1,017 deaths were recorded, alongside harms including blood-borne viruses and injection wounds. Preliminary figures for 2025 suggest that those numbers are increasing. There is a suspected 8% increase in drug deaths in the first nine months of 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. Those deaths and drug-related harms are very much concentrated in Glasgow, although not exclusively so. To address that, Glasgow City Council Health and Social Care Partnership and other partners launched the Thistle. The Thistle is located on Hunter Street in Glasgow’s east end, and it is the first sanctioned UK safer drug consumption room. In its first 10 months, the Thistle has had 522 unique visitors and has supervised over 6,000 injecting episodes. During this time there were 78 medical emergencies on site. Now, that might sound like a bad thing, but this means that there have been 78 instances where people have received professional medical intervention, which they might not otherwise have received. This medical intervention treats overdoses and potentially saves lives. There have been no fatalities at the Thistle in the year since it opened. Our Committee heard that, as a single service, the impact of the Thistle is expected to be highly localised. It is unlikely to shift the dial on national drug death figures, and it is not designed to do so. The question of cost was an ongoing theme throughout the inquiry. The Thistle is being funded by the Scottish Government, and up to £2.3 million per year has been committed for the duration of the three-year pilot. The Thistle is undoubtedly expensive to run. However, evidence suggests that facilities such as the Thistle can provide value for money by generating savings elsewhere in the health service. Such facilities can reduce costs associated with public injecting, including the costs of hospital admissions, ambulance call-outs and treating blood-borne viruses. Preventing just six to eight cases of HIV annually could potentially generate savings equivalent to the annual cost of the Thistle. It is right that the Thistle’s costs were properly considered in the Committee’s inquiry because it is a gold-standard model. That means that the value-for-money and harm-reduction capability of a less sophisticated model remains untested. However, with over 1,000 deaths in 2024 alone, the Committee is clear that the scale of Scotland’s emergency necessitates a commensurate response and significant investment. The report also emphasises how vital a drug checking licence would be in combating drug-related harm. We explained how such a licence would allow support services to better understand drug trends across Glasgow, and to take action in relation to them. That could be key in ensuring that the Thistle achieves maximum effectiveness. We recommended that the Home Office urgently complete its assessment of Glasgow’s application for a drug checking licence at the Thistle, and I was very pleased to see that the application was approved in October last year. With this licence, Glasgow will become the first city in Scotland where people can legally test drugs for dangerous contaminants. We know that applications for further drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen and Dundee have also been submitted to the Home Office, and we await the outcome of those applications. I will now make some remarks about the impact of the Thistle on the local community, which has quite rightly been the subject of much media reporting. I highlight how our report emphasises the importance of supporting the community surrounding the Thistle. The concerns of the local community must be taken seriously, which is why our report recommended proactive engagement through the community forum and the development of a responsive communication strategy. Amid the media commentary, we should also bear in mind that it may take time for the local effects of the Thistle to be fully understood. We are reassured that the ongoing independent evaluation is monitoring the levels of discarded paraphernalia, and the pilot’s wider impact on the community. That is vital, and it will ensure that debate about local impacts is informed by accurate, objective data. In November last year we published the Government’s response to our report. There is some positive messaging in the response, which we welcome, and the Government have said that they are firmly committed to tackling drug-related harms and to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government. The response also noted “the importance of evidence-based and high-quality treatment, which engages vulnerable people who use drugs.” Both those points very much align with the spirit of our report. When it comes to the Thistle itself, however, I must express some disappointment at the substance of the Government’s response. It states that the Government will “welcome any evidence” emerging from the evaluation of the Thistle. However, it also states that the Government have “no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971” to permit the operation of such facilities anywhere in the UK. It is difficult to see how full and proper consideration can be given to the Thistle’s evaluation unless the Government are at least open-minded to considering legal changes. As our report says, “Any intervention found to be effective at saving lives and reducing harm should not be dismissed.” Experts and evidence, rather than preconceived ideas, should determine the facility’s future. I directly asked the Prime Minister about this issue during a public session of the Liaison Committee in December. Given the scale of Scotland’s drug crisis, I asked whether he would reconsider the Government’s opposition to amending the law if the Thistle’s evaluation shows it to be effective. He said that the Government had looked at it but does not intend to do so. He also said that legal decisions pertaining to the Thistle are best taken by those in Scotland, and that this should not lead to a UK-wide changing of drugs law. Unfortunately, that response appears not to recognise that drugs law is reserved. In her response to this debate, I hope the Minister will help us to understand how the Government can welcome evidence while remaining closed as to what that evidence might say. Since the publication of our report, the issues we raised have only become more prescient. Interest has developed in additional safer drug consumption facilities elsewhere in Scotland. In Edinburgh, a feasibility study for a similar facility was undertaken in late 2024. That work confirmed strong local need for a facility, and identified two potential sites in the city. Then, in September 2025, the Edinburgh integration joint board announced plans to launch a formal public consultation early this year as part of developing a business case for a facility. The Lord Advocate’s current statement of prosecution policy, however, would not cover any other sites. It is specifically worded in such a way that it covers the Thistle facility and nowhere else. That prosecutorial statement indicates that it is not in the public interest to prosecute people at the Thistle. Our report concludes that relying on separate prosecution policies for multiple facilities is undesirable. If there are to be other safer drug consumption facilities beyond Glasgow, it is even more important that the UK Government address the issues highlighted in our report by establishing a clear legal basis that applies across Scotland. That would require legislation by the UK Government and Parliament. The issues covered in our report are more relevant now than ever, because drug consumption trends in Scotland are changing rapidly. Inhalation is becoming much more prevalent. We highlight the expert medical advice from Dr Saket Priyadarshi and others that shows that inhalation is a safer method of consumption than injection. Introducing an inhalation space could expand the reach of the Thistle by attracting those who smoke and inhale drugs rather than inject them. Dr Priyadarshi describes how it would reduce the appalling physical harm caused by injecting at wound sites. The Thistle does not currently have inhalation facilities. Such facilities would be prohibited under both reserved and devolved legislation, most notably Scotland’s smoking ban. Our report makes it clear that, for the Thistle to be effective, it must be able to meet the needs of the population it is trying to help. An inhalation room could therefore be key to maximising the Thistle’s effectiveness, and a fair evaluation of the facility’s full potential efficacy could be inhibited without one. Since the publication of our report, the Glasgow City integration joint board has announced plans potentially to provide an inhalation space within the Thistle. The board has approved plans to develop a full business case to explore it, and our report calls for any application to enable an inhalation space to be considered by the UK Government on its merits. In response to our report, the Government said that it “does not support” enabling inhalation. The Government suggest that it would be for the Lord Advocate, rather than the UK Government, to grant an exemption to reserved legislation. I hope the Minister might reflect on the logic that granting exemptions to reserved legislation is best done by the Lord Advocate through prosecutorial discretion rather than by the UK Government, who retain responsibility for drugs law. I have one further point. The Thistle is already operating, and it may evolve to provide more services in future. Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly likely that similar facilities may be established elsewhere in Scotland. All of that is happening whether the UK Government approve or not. To a certain extent, that reflects the proper operation of devolution and Scotland’s separate legal system, which enables Scotland to take a different path from the rest of the UK. However, as our report sets out, it would be undesirable for the Thistle or any other future facility to operate, potentially indefinitely, under the Lord Advocate’s prosecutorial discretion. The UK Government should recognise these realities, and if the Thistle is deemed a success, they should work with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a full, sustainable legal framework for such facilities. If they do not do so, the Government would be permitting the current unstable legal position to persist. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members and the Minister.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour party did not vote with the SNP on the Budget. The SNP needed the Tories to get Budgets through, and that was the basis on which they did a deal. Sadly, those Budgets very much reflected Tory values, and that is why Labour could not vote for them; nor could friends in other parties that are represented in this Chamber. I have to say, though, that time has been wasted by people obsessing about the constitution and creating grievances with Westminster. We could have been in a very different place if the Scottish Government had continued to focus on the issues that mattered to people in their everyday lives, and also if they had been more constructive in their engagement with Members of the Scottish Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross cited the ill-fated deposit return scheme as an example of when there was not that cross-party working to make legislation appropriate and fit for purpose; I would cite as another example the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act, which was passed in 2012 only to be repealed in 2018. Again, I would not suggest for a minute that Scotland does not sometimes have a problem with football matches, and with some of the sectarian and offensive behaviour that goes on in connection with them, but that Act was badly thought out. People tried to say so at the time, but they were not listened to. I think it is always important for us to listen to one another and hear what others have to say. Sadly, it has to be said that recent Scottish Governments have been found wanting when it comes to the measurements of success that they have set for themselves on NHS waiting time guarantees, climate targets or educational attainment, and the premise of the Parliament —allowing for the delivery of Scottish solutions to Scottish problems—has fallen some way short. For a Parliament that is devolved, it has had the most centralising agenda in recent years, which has not been to Scotland’s advantage. Scotland is made up of peoples, cities, towns and villages, and what works in my constituency of Glasgow West will not necessarily work in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. It is important that those differences are reflected, and that the agencies and public organisations that support and serve our populations reflect local bias, local need and local interest. Sadly, that is no longer the case in some places. As the Scottish Parliament progresses into its second quarter-century, we have an opportunity to look back, to mark both the successes and the shortcomings, and to recall the words of Donald Dewar at the Parliament’s opening on 1 July 1999, which are as relevant today as they were then. He said that we will “never lose sight of what brought us here—the striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal.” In recalling those words, we should look forward to the future, to how the Scottish Parliament can do right by the people of Scotland, and to how we Members of this Parliament can play a constructive part in making that so.